The problem of language is showing because you do not know how to communicate properly and can potentially confuse others here. What does "astrally" even mean? I'm sorry, I couldn't find it in the Oxford dictionary. Maybe it's because you're from the other side of the Atlantic. Help me out here...

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Summerlander wrote:You are being swayed and certainly the suconscious is dominant, but, the conscious mind is still present even if it is scarse. What fails to act is the logical mind as one mindlessly accepts whatever happens in dreams even if it is absurd.

I basically agree with this. Laberge was one of the people to challenge the idea that dreams are a manifestation of the subconscious as previously accepted. He proved this by essentially proving that you are conscious during dreams which was not the conventional wisdom at the time. His theory is that dreams are "constructs" of waking life, not subconscious creations. I think we have things that rise to surface in dreams that we are repressing which is part of process that goes on in dreams.

As far as the logical part of the brain, it's been proven already that this shuts down during dreams which I think is why we can't rationalize what's going on in a logical way. This makes it harder to become lucid. I think that's a good thing actually, because if are logical mind was "in the way" so to speak, dreams would be very regulated like our waking life and would be unable to serve their purpose. They'd also be pretty boring too.

Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Morpheus

lucidinthe sky wrote:I basically agree with this. Laberge was one of the people to challenge the idea that dreams are a manifestation of the subconscious as previously accepted. He proved this by essentially proving that you are conscious during dreams which was not the conventional wisdom at the time. His theory is that dreams are "constructs" of waking life, not subconscious creations. I think we have things that rise to surface in dreams that we are repressing which is part of process that goes on in dreams.

Definitely sounds like a plausible explanation.

As far as the logical part of the brain, it's been proven already that this shuts down during dreams which I think is why we can't rationalize what's going on in a logical way. This makes it harder to become lucid. I think that's a good thing actually, because if are logical mind was "in the way" so to speak, dreams would be very regulated like our waking life and would be unable to serve their purpose. They'd also be pretty boring too.

When I go from a dream awareness to a lucid awareness, I'm then able to enact a technique to bring forth that "logical mind" (or the cognitive processes). When one does that, it's now an astral awareness experience, or as the new agers call it, a full astral projection. You're as aware as you are right now.

I've always wondered and intrigued into what triggers my logical mind to kick in randomly like that. LoL

Ryan wrote: I'm becoming less and less amazed each time I have non-physical experiences and I take note of the nuances of the reality I'm experiencing. Suffice to say that my non-physical experiences (aka dreams, lucid dreams and projections) are every bit as real as this physical reality is to me right now.

Here's some food for thought:

The question: "what is reality?" is one of my favorite and one I often meditate on. I was meditating on that today and here's what I saw. The word was "realize" which has a double meaning in a sense. The standard meaning is to become aware, but when you realize something you make it real.

So maybe the universe is made of pure possibilties and that is the only true "objective" reality. Once the possibilities become "realized" they exist as the "subjective" reality that we experience. I'm still thinking about the dynamic nature of dreams, particularly when close observations are made and believe it realates to this, like attempting to read text for example. Maybe we can't fully "realize" things in dreams.

Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Morpheus

Peter wrote:When I am fully lucid I start by recalling my waking reality day - meals, any work I have done, what my name is, what my job is and them any dream goals I may have decided to try and acheive

Is this not a my logical mind at work?

I believe it is, and I have had similar thoughts in LDs. It's only logical reasoning that makes the conclusion that you are dreaming.

There have been lots of studies on which parts of the brain are active during REM sleep and I'm wondering why there is what looks like a contradiction here.

Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Morpheus

Peter wrote:When I am fully lucid I start by recalling my waking reality day - meals, any work I have done, what my name is, what my job is and them any dream goals I may have decided to try and acheive

Is this not a my logical mind at work?

Definitely. I'd actually consider your example as a full astral projection. Or as I'd refer to it a non-physical astral awareness experience (or just astral awareness experience, for the less chance to get tongue tied hehe).

lucidinthe sky wrote:Here's some food for thought:

The question: "what is reality?" is one of my favorite and one I often meditate on. I was meditating on that today and here's what I saw. The word was "realize" which has a double meaning in a sense. The standard meaning is to become aware, but when you realize something you make it real.

So maybe the universe is made of pure possibilties and that is the only true "objective" reality. Once the possibilities become "realized" they exist as the "subjective" reality that we experience. I'm still thinking about the dynamic nature of dreams, particularly when close observations are made and believe it realates to this, like attempting to read text for example. Maybe we can't fully "realize" things in dreams.

If you haven't already read it, you should check out Tom Campbell's "My Big Toe". In it, he theorizes that all of this physical reality is virtual, and that it's all made up of data (information) and probabilities of that data. The double slit experiment and the double slit delayed choice quantum eraser experiment support his theories.

You're going quantum with your particular question.

http://unlimitedboundaries.ca/2012/02/11/quantum-physics-101-double-slit-experiment/That's a link with a really good explanation of it. Enjoy.

Ryan wrote:If you haven't already read it, you should check out Tom Campbell's "My Big Toe". In it, he theorizes that all of this physical reality is virtual, and that it's all made up of data (information) and probabilities of that data. The double slit experiment and the double slit delayed choice quantum eraser experiment support his theories.

I've listened to him and he has definitely influenced my opinion. He is in my opinion at least on the right track, if not completely correct. His whole concept sounds pretty far out, but it's actually a fairly simple model when compared to something like the "flux compactification" model of 11 dimension string theory. Forget about Occam's Razor.

Campbell proposes a subjective reality based on a supercomputer type "God" if you will, which I understand to be the entire consciousness of the universe, including all of us. It's kind of like the Matrix, only with nice guys running things. Reality is essentially designed for the specific pupose of making the consciuos entity more efficient.

The Newtonian science model of "reality" that we use today does a good job of explaining things at the macro-level where what appears to us can tested "objectively" (illusion) and seems to follow certain rules. This is very useful to us as humans and I'm very thankful for it because it makes life somewhat predictable, unlike things at the quantum level. But just because it follows certain rules and is reproducible, does not mean we know it's the true representation of reality. These rules start to break down at the quantum level, even something as simple as gravity doesn't really make sense. It's much weaker than it should be. I just read on a physics forum: "gravity isn't weak, it's just misunderstood". Yes, and so are a lot of things at the quantum level.

At the quantum level reality is subjective and experiments such as the double slit show this. I think what goes for the quantum level must also go for the rest since everything is made of atoms. Therefore, I think that objectivity is merely part of the illusion. Campbell claims that since science refuses to accept consciousness because it is subjective, it will never be able to produce the so-called unified theory. He believes like I do that reality is subjective and the conscious observer has a role in determining it. Until science accepts this, they will never be able to produce a theory that completely describes the reality we live in.

I am very optomistic that one way or another, the curtain will be going up soon and either we're going to figure out what's going on or someone or something is going to show us.

Last edited by lucidinthe sky on 13 Feb 2012 22:23, edited 2 times in total.

Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Morpheus